IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v102y2021i4p1484-1495.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

One Bad Apple Spoils the Bunch: Kavanaugh and Change in Institutional Support for the Supreme Court

Author

Listed:
  • Nathan T. Carrington
  • Colin French

Abstract

Objective We analyze the extent to which, if any, institutional support of the U.S. Supreme Court was influenced by the confirmation hearings of Brett Kavanaugh. Methods We use a nationally representative survey supplemented with an online survey experiment using a hypothetical nominee both conducted shortly after the Senate confirmed Kavanaugh to the bench. Results We find a strong relationship between negative feelings toward Kavanaugh and support for reform of the Court and confirm the direction of this relationship in the subsequent experiment. Conclusion In contrast to Krewson and Schroedel, our findings show that appointing a nominee who behaves in an overtly political manner during their confirmation hearings can significantly and meaningfully affect the institutional support afforded to the nation's highest court.

Suggested Citation

  • Nathan T. Carrington & Colin French, 2021. "One Bad Apple Spoils the Bunch: Kavanaugh and Change in Institutional Support for the Supreme Court," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1484-1495, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:102:y:2021:i:4:p:1484-1495
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12983
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12983
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.12983?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James L. Gibson & Michael J. Nelson, 2015. "Is the U.S. Supreme Court's Legitimacy Grounded in Performance Satisfaction and Ideology?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(1), pages 162-174, January.
    2. Alex Badas, 2019. "The Applied Legitimacy Index: A New Approach to Measuring Judicial Legitimacy," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 100(5), pages 1848-1861, August.
    3. James L. Gibson & Gregory A. Caldeira & Lester Kenyatta Spence, 2003. "Measuring Attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(2), pages 354-367, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christopher N. Krewson & Jean R. Schroedel, 2023. "Modern judicial confirmation hearings and institutional support for the Supreme Court," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 104(3), pages 364-369, May.
    2. Nathan T. Carrington & Colin French, 2022. "Mechanisms, measurements, and manifestations in evaluating the effects of confirmation hearings on Supreme Court legitimacy," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(5), pages 1290-1294, September.
    3. L. J. Zigerell, 2022. "Did Brett Kavanaugh's overt partisanship cause severe harm to the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court?," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(4), pages 789-793, July.
    4. Nathan T. Carrington & Logan Strother, 2023. "Plugging the pipe? Evaluating the (null) effects of leaks on Supreme Court legitimacy," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 669-712, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nathan T. Carrington & Logan Strother, 2023. "Plugging the pipe? Evaluating the (null) effects of leaks on Supreme Court legitimacy," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 669-712, September.
    2. James R. Rogers & Joseph Daniel Ura, 2020. "A majoritarian basis for judicial countermajoritarianism," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 32(3), pages 435-459, July.
    3. Nathan T. Carrington & Colin French, 2022. "Mechanisms, measurements, and manifestations in evaluating the effects of confirmation hearings on Supreme Court legitimacy," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(5), pages 1290-1294, September.
    4. James L. Gibson*, 2007. "“Truth” And “Reconciliation” As Social Indicators," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 81(2), pages 257-281, April.
    5. Christopher N. Krewson & Jean R. Schroedel, 2023. "Modern judicial confirmation hearings and institutional support for the Supreme Court," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 104(3), pages 364-369, May.
    6. Jonas Tallberg & Michael Zürn, 2019. "The legitimacy and legitimation of international organizations: introduction and framework," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 581-606, December.
    7. Christopher N. Krewson & Jean R. Schroedel, 2020. "Public Views of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Aftermath of the Kavanaugh Confirmation," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1430-1441, July.
    8. Damon Cann & Jeff Yates, 2021. "Evaluating diffuse support for state high courts among individuals with varying levels of policy agreement," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2824-2835, November.
    9. Kayla S. Canelo, 2022. "Citations to Interest Groups and Acceptance of Supreme Court Decisions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 189-222, March.
    10. James L. Gibson & Gregory A. Caldeira, 2009. "Confirmation Politics and The Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court: Institutional Loyalty, Positivity Bias, and the Alito Nomination," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 139-155, January.
    11. Scott Simon Boddery & Damon Cann & Laura Moyer & Jeff Yates, 2023. "The role of cable news hosts in public support for Supreme Court decisions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(4), pages 1045-1069, December.
    12. Jonski Kamil, 2021. "Public Confidence in the Judiciary and the Police – Does Respondents Internalize Montesquieu’s Ideas?," Asian Journal of Law and Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-17, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:102:y:2021:i:4:p:1484-1495. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.